RE: Duty to retreat...

RE: Duty to retreat... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 1:03:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Even a dog is allowed the right of self defense shouldn't people have as many rights as a dog. A silly tangent, and untrue. A dog bites, and it's all over. Wrong again here a dog gets one free bite, and circumstances could provide more.

Musicmystery -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 1:28:49 PM)
Then it works different where you live. And once again, your view does not equal fiat reality.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 1:32:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Then it works different where you live. And once again, your view does not equal fiat reality. It is at least as valid as yours.

Musicmystery -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 4:30:19 PM)
You didn't understand what I wrote. Try reading it again. You saw something other than what was there. Why? Because your opinion about what it was going to be interfered with you reading what it says in reality.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 4:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You didn't understand what I wrote. Try reading it again. You saw something other than what was there. Why? Because your opinion about what it was going to be interfered with you reading what it says in reality. I understood perfectly, my view of reality is at least as valid as yours, maybe you should read again, sounds like projection to me. And I have no more claimed fiat reality than you have. In fact this little exchange began with your absolute proclamation that I didn't know what I was talking about because it's not that way where you live.

LorraineCA -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 4:38:24 PM)
I'm talking about a non-threatening person who goes into your house, opens your refrigerator, sits at the table and eats. NON-THREATENING Besides, why would you want to shoot a poor non-threatening homeless individual who is hungry and goes into your house? Self-defense as a Legal Defense Under California Criminal Law

jlf1961 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 4:39:48 PM)
Well, considering that fixed fortifications are a testament to insanity, to avoid the necessity of retreat on my own property I have been looking at modernized fortress style castle designs. As far as retreating in another location, given the state self defense laws, I cant use deadly force unless the attacker has a deadly weapon, which can be a knife, baseball bat, crowbar, gun etc. Anything that legally fits the description as qualified by the criminal code. FYI in many states, that can include a vehicle.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 4:46:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA I'm talking about a non-threatening person who goes into your house, opens your refrigerator, sits at the table and eats. NON-THREATENING Besides, why would you want to shoot a poor non-threatening homeless individual who is hungry and goes into your house? Self-defense as a Legal Defense Under California Criminal Law He thinks that he has a right to anything I own, when the cops arrived he would have a butcher knife in his cold dead hand.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 4:46:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA I'm talking about a non-threatening person who goes into your house, opens your refrigerator, sits at the table and eats. NON-THREATENING Besides, why would you want to shoot a poor non-threatening homeless individual who is hungry and goes into your house? Self-defense as a Legal Defense Under California Criminal Law Perhaps you missed this bit (from your link) - "California self-defense law also encompasses the right to use force to defend your property from harm. This right covers both real property (like a house or land) and personal property (money, cars, jewelry, etc.)" That means the homeowner is able to lawfully restrain and/or use force to protect their property. So... your intruder raiding your fridge is being a threat. [:)]

Musicmystery -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 8:04:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You didn't understand what I wrote. Try reading it again. You saw something other than what was there. Why? Because your opinion about what it was going to be interfered with you reading what it says in reality. I understood perfectly, my view of reality is at least as valid as yours, maybe you should read again, sounds like projection to me. And I have no more claimed fiat reality than you have. In fact this little exchange began with your absolute proclamation that I didn't know what I was talking about because it's not that way where you live. And you still missed it again, even with the heads up. You aren't even on the same issue.

MrBukani -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 8:29:37 PM)
Americans without guns are like girls without smartphones. They don't know what to do without them.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 8:31:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Then it works different where you live. And once again, your view does not equal fiat reality. It is at least as valid as yours. Things work different in different states, never said my view = fiat reality but neither does yours.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 8:36:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Wrong while you may or may not have participated in it all your allies were up in arms wanting a man to be jailed for shooting an intruder who pushed into their home at 1 am Can you cite any evidence of that? I have brought anti gun allies in Maryland thread for your review so you can see your contention is full of holes.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 10:07:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic unfortunately by all these "terms" are not set out, but left to interpretation by the gun owners "feelings" at the time and subject to bullshit claims when they fuck up Mental health issues are being ignored as always anger, paranoia, self righteousness that says your life is more valuable than anyone appearing to be looking to hurt you. WHOAH!!!!! Back up. The OP was talking about any number of options that essentially give the right to protect.....your own. Didn't even propose an opinion. I'll state mine. None of which have/has anything to do with mental health (mine included). Guy comes to my home, acts threatening....I have a sign on my front door...."I have several guns, in multiple locations. They are here for your protection, not mine". If someone crosses the threshold....errantly....I don't care if it was a mistake on their behalf.

TheHeretic -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 10:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA I'm talking about a non-threatening person who goes into your house, opens your refrigerator, sits at the table and eats. NON-THREATENING Once the person enters the home without authorization, any determination as to "threatening" is strictly at the discretion of the lawful resident. That decision is not subject to second-guessing by the courts, and is immune from civil action by the family of the deceased, if it goes that way. The hypothetical doesn't work for my home. The dogs would force the issue, long before s/he got near the refrigerator.

Musicmystery -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/10/2014 10:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Then it works different where you live. And once again, your view does not equal fiat reality. It is at least as valid as yours. Things work different in different states, never said my view = fiat reality but neither does yours. Still looking for issue? Keep trying.

truckinslave -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 3:31:28 PM)
quote: your life is more valuable than anyone appearing to be looking to hurt you. I hold that truth to be self-evident

Lucylastic -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 4:01:13 PM)
selective editing is your bullshit response?

GotSteel -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 5:14:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I have brought anti gun allies in Maryland thread for your review so you can see your contention is full of holes. Wasn't that the one where if the guy got himself shot kicking in the door shrug but it seemed an awful like that's not what happened. Don't I recall something about the homeowner letting the victim in, getting into an argument with him and then gunning the victim down outside while he tried to flee?

LorraineCA -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 6:21:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA I'm talking about a non-threatening person who goes into your house, opens your refrigerator, sits at the table and eats. NON-THREATENING Once the person enters the home without authorization, any determination as to "threatening" is strictly at the discretion of the lawful resident. That decision is not subject to second-guessing by the courts, and is immune from civil action by the family of the deceased, if it goes that way. The hypothetical doesn't work for my home. The dogs would force the issue, long before s/he got near the refrigerator. Why can't I do this hypothetical scene? "Hey Judy, come on over I would like to talk to you." Judy comes over. "Judy, I hate your guts." Crack her over the head with a hammer. Call 911 "Judy was trespassing."

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875